User talk:MondayMonday1966

Welcome!

Hello, MondayMonday1966. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm Suneye1, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do cite reliable sources   Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't add original research   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, - SUN EYE 1 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

Hi! Thank you so much for keeping the scores up to date for the Solheim Cup this weekend. It helped me enjoy watching the matches.

MondayMonday1966, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MondayMonday1966! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2021

Please stop adding people to the page who do not have international notability. Articles such as 2021 in the United States should be used instead. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

    I did not know that page was for international notability, since there was no explanation for the removal. There should be a notation on the Death section saying it is for international notability only, although a famous actor who is known worldwide, as Gavin MacLeod was, should obviously fit. If there was a note, I would not have done the undo or posted it originally. I also did not know of the other page for known deaths, and you did not cite the correct page. It is 2021 deaths in the United States. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but Wikipedia editors should put a note on what specifically is only allowed in that section. I'm sure this happened many times on other pages. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t restore an error to Lydia Ko

I have again removed the info you added to Lydia Ko stating she won on the 16th hole. it is strokeplay, not matchplay, so she won on the 18 hole which she completed to record the lowest score of the tournament. She could still have lost it on the 18th.. Also, "Thrilling" is POV. Moriori (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Technically, of course you are correct that nobody wins on the 16th hole (stroke play), with two holes remaining. I made an error implying that was a win right there, and you did not mention Ko could have lost it on the 16th or 17th, before they get to the 18th. I re-worded it now to show Ko took the lead, and it was actually on the 15th hole. Thanks for catching that technical error, but I'm sure you knew what I meant to say, just worded it badly. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

latvia at the winter olympics

adjusting totals based on a source from January 19, when changes happened after that, is not helpful.18abruce (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 If there were any changes after that January 19 article, you could source and fix the total, if you have a more current update since. I don't see any sourced updates after January 19. Do you? I've seen sources report 2,871 athletes, so there are another three needed to subtract from that table. Thanks for your point, but you did not help either. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The FIS reallocations happened after that date, and you simply changed the total so that you have eleven women with a total listed as ten. Each sport is sourced, it would appear that it is cross-country skiing that is at issue. I would say correcting a mistake is always helpful, being careless is not.18abruce (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a legitimate reference for that reallocation, as you simply changed the list back to where it was, with no source at all? I found a February 6 source (Sunday, today) that reaffirms the 57 total that is not a mistake, but does not say which sport is the loss. The mistake was somebody first posting the 58 with no source, so where did that arbitrary 58 number come from and why was it listed at all since it was unsourced? Somebody just make a guess, or what, and why was that allowed to stand in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia_at_the_2022_Winter_Olympics#Cross-country_skiing

https://www.diglogs.com/latvia/four-latvian-athletes-will-compete-in-the-beijing-olympics-on-monday (Feb. 6)

"...In Beijing, Latvia is represented at the Olympic Games by 57 athletes in 11 sports ..." So, will you reject that later source too? MondayMonday1966 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Shirley Burkovich

On 2 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shirley Burkovich, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Kroger Queen City Championship moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kroger Queen City Championship, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kroger Queen City Championship (September 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kroger Queen City Championship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WDAE in Tampa

I have reverted your edit to Tampa, Florida, because I found that there is a historical marker that states that WDAE was the first radio station in Florida. If you know of a reliable source that documents an earlier radio station in Florida, please note it at both the Tampa article and the WDAE article. Donald Albury 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I did see WQAM (Miami) in its first air date in Feb. 1921, in the text under the 'History' section, also in the Infobox. I did find two references to WQAM airing in Feb. 1921, so I will add those references. The one puzzling question is it did not get its broadcasting license until Jan. 1923. But it did air first, before WDAE. Thank you for finding that historical marker, but it could be in error with the references on WQAM. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The text at WDAE said before it "was one of the earliest radio stations in Florida," not the very first. WDAE#WDAE_AM_1250_history

I also reverted this edit for the same reason. This source is a blog that may or may not qualify as a good WP:source and mentions 1921 as the start date, but that fact is linked to this magazine which says WQAM was licensed in 1923. The other cited source is a wiki, which again may not be a reliable source, but it also mentions 1923 as the start date. It's possible that a precursor to WQAM was broadcasting without a license before that, as broadcast regulations were primitive and it wasn't uncommon for businesses or hobbyists to set up a transmitter and start broadcasting a (weak) signal. But that wouldn't count as an official radio station, in my opinion. Zeng8r (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Does it have to be a legal ("official" in your terminology) radio station in regards to being the first to broadcast? I believe those are two separate things. The one that first broadcasts to a wide local city or area should not be erased as the first solely because it may not have been "legal" in obtaining a license. First Amendment does not require a government permit, if you want to talk legal in the first place. Just my opinion which can be just as appropriate in having WQAM be the first to broadcast. Feb. 1921 does beat 1922, no matter. But, I'll leave it alone unless I can find a more "official" (verifiable, in wiki's vernacular) to change it. I'll keep looking, but as you said it was your own opinion on determining the first to broadcast in Florida. Thanks for that research into finding the marker for WDAE, but I still believe if two or more sources reported WQAM broadcast first, even if sans government license, it should be given credit. You or I can always add the notation that it did that before a government "license" was created. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2023 LPGA Tour has been accepted

2023 LPGA Tour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

thefamouspeople.com as a reference

Hi MondayMonday1966. I noticed that you used thefamouspeople.com as a reference for biographical information in Ainsley Earhardt. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not mention the other reference I added, in case the first one was rejected. What about https://biographymask.com/ainsley-earhardt ? Why and how do some reference links get the reliable nod, while others do not, and who decides which one is which type? You do realize even some of the so-called "reliable sources" can be UN-reliable if they lie, as the New York Times and other newspapers kept repeating the proven lie that Russia had an influence on the 2016 presidential election. Right? So, after that was proven to be lies, why is the NY Times not considered UN-reliable, as were other so-called "reliable sources" that repeated the same lie for over 3 years? Can you answer that important question for me and others? How many lies does it take before the NY Times is removed as being only a lapdog media for some special interests? Don't forget my first question on my second reference that you did not mention, but also removed. I'll look for other sources for Ainsley Earhardt, but if I find others with the same date, are you also going to remove them if they aren't as "prestigious" as the NY Times, even though they have been proven liars on other topics over the years? Thank you! MondayMonday1966 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Biographymask.com is far worse. I believe the answers to your questions are at WP:RS and WP:RSN. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Could you explain how you got the "Biographymask.com is far worse" fact, if it is not listed at all at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources? Just curious how it is figured, and who does the figuring on all these sources someone can choose from on the Internet. You never answered how any supposedly "reliable" news source (and the others) with the NY Times consistently lying about an important subject for over 3 years, yet is not downgraded at all! Why not? Isn't that recent enough and long enough in its deliberate lying to cast doubt on anything else it publishes since, as we will never know from now on if it is somehow telling the truth, or lying once again for partisan political purposes! I really do believe Wiki is deliberately ideologically biased (prejudiced) in its left-wing politics, as so many have now claimed. Including its former co-founder, Larry Sanger, and he said that back in 2007, as "broken beyond repair." That has to tell you something when a former co-founder of Wiki also claims it has gone to a biased overall view, with hidden editors (some in the U.S. government) are always on the lookout for any posting that goes against what the government wants everyone to see in its narrative, erasing anything to the contrary. Do you agree, or believe somehow it is still neutral as it originally was intended, or taken over by special interests, as in government agencies that has corrupted it beyond reason? Thank you! MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Including Sanger's commentary and theories about "some in the US government" makes one question what it is that you are actually doing here. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I just thought that was a very important case to mention on the supposedly "neutral point of view" that is certainly not the case, and Wiki listing the NY Times as always "reliable" when evidence exists in recent (and past) that it is not consistently reliable at all. Thank you for your view, but millions have stopped believing in the NY Times and other MSM media outlets that repeat lies for 3+ consecutive years that should then have them removed as "reliable." You are correct, the NY Times and other MSM sources have nothing to do specifically with my finding a celebrity's birthdate that will be accepted, but there is that connection in finding what Wiki accepts as "reliable" and "neutral point of view" that goes to the heart of the starting of Wiki in the first place. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So you'd rather take a random website with no apparent editorial control and no reckoning of who their writers or their sources are. I don't care who stopped believing in what: the NYT still has an editorial board, and that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election is, as outlined in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, simply a fact, rather than a proven lie. Feel free to peruse that article and find fault with the sources. None of that is actually relevant here, but it's worthwhile noting that you would bring that canard up to somehow defend your choice of taking just an absolutely lousy webpage with celeb trivia to verify information on a living person. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the NYT has an "editorial board" but obviously BIASED so strongly, there is bias of omission just as they do repeatedly in commission of their bias. Don't believe me? Ever heard of Walter Duranty? Their primary reporter in the 1930s who denounced reports about the famine in the USSR, and in their satellite nations. Only millions were deliberately starved by Stalin and the USSR. Duranty got a Pulitzer Prize, and their board refused later to strip him of that honor he never should have received! NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote in 2003: "A Pulitzer Prize is not just an accolade for an isolated piece of work. It at least implies an accolade for the reporter's performance, and Duranty's performance was shameful."

Proof enough, or do you want more evidence? How about the refusal to report on Hunter's laptop, that if it was honestly reported in 2020, could have changed enough votes for his dad to lose. Let's not even go into the numerous 1,000s of sworn affidavits (under penalty of jail), the videos, the NY trucker Jesse Morgan who went public, saying he trucked pallets of ballots from NY to Pennsylvania. How about J.B. himself, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0 (Nov. 5, 2020), saying, "We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." No publicity on that admission! How about the evidence coming out now on J.B.'s massive bribery for him and his family? No publicity on that, either from all the MSM "reliable" news organizations! MondayMonday1966 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP summarizes the consensus from multiple WP:RSN discussions. Biographymask.com has never been discussed at RSN, so it doesn't appear at RSP. I've found two cases where it was considered for use: It was offered once on an article talk page by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked, where it was rejected. It was considered in an AfD discussion, where it was also rejected. By their own admission, biographymask.com is a group blog. --Hipal (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, so I won't use them. Thanks. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

BLP

There are clearly objections to including the names on the talk page. Adding the name requires consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I expected it, but there are either contradictions or definitions that need to be defined more clearly to distinguish between the two, as I made note of. I did not add his name under 'suspect' line, but under 'assailant'. So, what is the difference, if any? What do you do, if the person is never convicted because of death, or not for many months after arrest, never post his name at all? I think there should be SOME WAY to ID the name of a suspect/assailant before any conviction; let's say at least after his arrest (presently still on the lam), and is a private citizen before, not a public figure. MondayMonday1966 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Assailant is even worse than suspect, as it's a statement of fact, rather than suspicion. The rest of what you brought up is decided in talk pages. Please do not add contentious BLP content that you expect will be removed because they're is no consensus again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I added it under 'assailant' because the instructions were NOT to put his name under 'suspect' until CONVICTION (which is ridiculous on its face). So, I obeyed the rule! Maybe the rule needs to be expanded to cover both labels, otherwise, there is no rule to prevent the name placed in the 'assailant' line. See the problem I noticed? MondayMonday1966 (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already an admin warning on the talk page about adding the suspect's name, along with the FAQ, and the hidden warning(s) on the article not to add the name. If you really want to fight this, I would say WP:BLPN is the best option, but please make sure you have a reasonable argument in mind. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 St. Louis Cardinals season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedro Pagés.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. Women's Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancaster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --Blablubbs (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MondayMonday1966 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wanted to explain the circumstances on what happened. I was on a wiki-type area many years ago, not on the main Wikipedia. It was so long ago, I don't remember the actual wiki-name. What I did was wrong, but I did not threaten anyone, I used some words to someone I should not have used. I feel badly for some reason in using those words, but I never made any threats or vandalized any pages. But I used words to someone that was inappropriate. I sincerely apologize for that. I was cleared to again edit on Wikipedia after years of not allowed to, because an editor recognized the excessive blocking on the main Wikipedia page; in addition to the Wiki-type area where I admit I used inappropriate words, and was correctly blocked. I never tried to re-enter that actual Wiki-type area again with any sockpuppetry. The editor(s) who cleared me 3+ years ago already knew I had a new username, and therefore did not block me then in using my current username. The old one was as I said, blocked years earlier, as was the correct policy to stop my inappropriate words to someone. After I was cleared, I believed I was then not going to have a problem to edit with my current username, which I have done obeying all the rules since Apr. 2021, now over 3 years ago. I promise I won't do any more of what is called sockpuppetry, but as I explained above, it was many years back then I was correctly blocked from that other Wiki-type area, but also from the main Wikipedia, which I believed was excessive and more than what was required to prevent any future inappropriate words there, which could only be done on that other Wiki-type area. I am deeply sorry for my original misuse from many years ago on that other Wiki-type area. I am using only my present username after I believed there would be no more problem after I have been cleared now for over 3 years in using it, editing mostly in the sports area. I will of course, abide by the final decision in taking into account my long history in editing accurately as possible, no vandalism, threats to anyone, disruption, etc., if allowed to be cleared as I have been for the past 3 years. I hope this explanation satisfactorily explains what happened so long ago, and I hope to be judged more by my recent past 3 years of my edits that add to the information for everyone, and is not vandalism, threatening anybody, disruption, or hurting Wikipedia. If there is anything I can do to further atone for my long ago misuse on a Wiki-type area, on the main Wikipedia, I'll gladly do it if I could. I like helping the general Wikipedia information that I can add to when I could, and always with a recognized reference. I personally and frequently refer to Wikipedia for valid information on many subjects of interest, and will continue to do so. Again, I apologize profusely for my original misuse and now the sockpuppetry I did, although I was cleared by editors in using it for the past 3+ years, so that should also be taken into account. I hope the time I was NOT in Wikipedia before these past 3 years is sufficient, and I have regretted that initial misuse on the other Wiki-area ever since. I am hoping I can be given a second and this time a final chance to be cleared to edit Wikipedia again, as I was 3+ years ago when I explained to those editors and they accepted my present username. If they didn't accept my present username, I would not have added to Wikipedia constructively as I have over the past 3+ years. I trust the editor(s) who decide my case will understand the circumstances on how it was in being banned from not only the old Wiki-area where I did misuse that area with the correct decision to ban me there, but also banned from the general Wikipedia that was reversed in clearing me over 3 years ago, where I am a good editor after, as I am now. Thank you very much, and I would appreciate a positive response. Sincerely yours, MondayMonday1966 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We can and will not consider your unblock here, as your original account was blocked by WP:ARBCOM. You must contest that block to them. Additionally, I will note that a lot of what you say above doesn't match any of the block info on any of your accounts. I want to be very, very clear. DO NOT MAKE ANOTHER UNBLOCK REQUEST. Your only avenue of appeal at this time is via WP:ARBCOM. Yamla (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.